My clear take after this event is that that the code & network will at some point fork between those who see Bitcoin as a vehicle for political change, versus those who want Bitcoin to be sanitized into just a cheaper PayPal/SWIFT. Those two visions are simply not compatible in the long run.
I think you are saying that the two visions are not compatible in a single product. If so, I agree. I would guess that, after the fork, two viable products would emerge, say a transparent-
BTC and an opaque-
BTC such that anyone might routinely use a wallet of either type, depending on the transaction of the moment. "Render unto seizure" for one, so to speak, and "none of Big Brother's business" for the other. In that sense, I'm thinking the two visions could be compatible and could usefully coexist. If this kind of fork is viable, it could prevent unnecessary community infighting to make only one vision dominant.
Yep. Forks and altchains are not necessarily a bad thing. The USA forked from England in 1776 on ideological grounds, and that experiment turned out fine.
Possibly a privacy-preserving "anarcholibertarian" fork will be get some help from (or be based on) something like this: